like trying to film an adam ant video in a telephone booth

Out To Lunch: Today, claims to know something about aesthetics are
an affront to people who claim to know things. Resentment at
institutional bullying of subjectivity has itself become
institutionalised: 'Thou shalt not judge' is written over the door of
the cultural studies department. But such scholarly 'objectivity'
just lip-syncs the golden rule of those involved in the art business:
never mention aesthetics. Making an aesthetic judgment is tantamount
to breaking the contract that undergirds the dialogue. Who farted in
the torture chamber?

Nanatux: How can you say that? Aesthetic judgment is an assertion
of privilege, a hierarchical imposition of values from above! The
very basis of our discussion of cultural value is that we understand
relativism as the matrix we're all enmeshed in, in which the
different, cross-cutting aspects of gender, race, sexual-orientation,
physical ableness, religious-orientation, size, susceptibility to
viruses and so on all play a part!

Hegel [aside]: Thinking is always the negation of what we have
immediately before us.

Out To Lunch: Aesthetics is extra-personal, and that's why I assert
it! It's as material and objective as the stars. It's more critical
than any campaign against size or looks or other discriminations,
because it taps the very roots of attractions, the inevitability of
which Charles Fourier theorised.

+++++++++++++++++

[adapted for the screen from a fantasy dialectic by ben watson, 2003]

http://www.invisiblemadevisible.co.uk/stencils03/girl+pet.jpg
http://www.tinkin.com/zimagess/warehouse/waretoliet3.jpg

_
_